Ammunition (p. 146). Loading a one handed weapon requires a free hand
I think most people wanted dual crossbows just for aesthetic feel. Or atleast form what I could tell, but it does make more sense to need a free hand. Didn't really see a problem with someone saying they were dual wieldnig, because there was no bonus for doing so.
intently wrote:
HermanTheWize wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
randl wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
intently wrote:
randl wrote:
I would always require unequipping and equipping a weapon to use your "other action", so you can only do it once without using a turn. Butting the bow under your arm is at least as hard as just dropping it.
It still means you can get 3 attacks per 2 turns.
mellored wrote:
randl wrote:
not to nitpick mellored but having 2 weapon enchants, because you're dual wielding 2 hand crossbows is a sort of mechanical benefit imo.
Noctaem wrote:
Dual wielding has the benefit of still having a weapon if an opponenet disarms one of them.
"Holding" means you are "gripping in your hand". As far as the context of the rules, unless a sentence is more specific, as in "... held [in a pouch]", or "... held [in my teeth]", the assumption is that an item is held in your hand, especially regarding weapons, which are defined as "one-handed" and "two-handed". For instance, if you are holding a shield, it's in your hand. If it's not in your hand, but rather you're holding a shield [in your arms], you're merely carrying a shield.
So yes, you can reload a hand crossbow under your arm using your free hand. But then you have to draw the crossbow to get it back into your hand in order to attack with it, which is your one free object interaction. But since you weren't holding the hand crossbow, you couldn't attack with it until you drew it, and since you couldn't attack with it yet, you couldn't load it as part of the attack, so the reloading was your one free object interaction, but then you couldn't draw it to even make an attack, so loading as part of an attack that can't be made because you aren't holding a weapon isn't even possible.
So either you are holding a single hand crossbow and loading it with your other hand as you make your attack, or
You aren't yet holding the hand crossbow because it's not in your hand; it's under your arm, in which case you can't load it as part of the attack, because you can't attack with a weapon you're not holding. Unless you want to argue that you can attack with a hand crossbow while it's held under your arm. But that would make it a "zero-handed" weapon instead of one-handed.
Or you can simply houserule so the Ammunition property or the free hand requirement no longer applies. Fun times.
Noctaem wrote:
... just found this nifty old (very old !) Ral Partha figure.
If someone wants to use 2 hand crossbows with Crossbow Expertise it's pretty simple to rule that it mechanically works the same as one hand crossbow. Done.
Bloodscythe wrote:
So, putting and holding a hand crossbow under your arm while also trying to use that same arm to do load a second hand crossbow, then using the same arm again to grab the crossbow (which is a fairly large object) held under it's own armpit without dropping it, all of that, is somehow less comlicated and time consuming than drawing or sheathing a sword? No, that is silly.
Thread is named "Errata finally clarifies proper dual hand crossbows"
Thread goes on to show there is still much contention... 
intently wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
You can still dual wield hand crossbows, you always could. You just can't reload them.
However, with the extra attack ability, there's still some benefit to a non-crossbow-expert holding a hand crossbow in each hand, and firing both as the close into melee, then dropping one or both and drawing a new weapon. A monk could also do some neat things with extra attack and a hand crossbow, sling or blowgun.
It's just not quite as easy to be a one-trick-pony, which I think is fine.
RCanine wrote:
widdershins wrote:
Sure. If you are willing to spend your action to summon the hand, and another action each time you want it to manipulate an object (eg hold a crossbow or reload an arrow into a crossbow you are holding).
Mage hand is not an exploit. Many people seem to forget it requires an action for it to do anything except sit there and look awesome.
MechaPilot wrote:
Treantmonklvl20 wrote:
Also note: "Free hand" not "Empty hand". I could load a bolt into a Crossbow with something else in that hand (say, another crossbow, or even a shield). It requires all the dexterity of holding a remote and a pencil in the same hand.
Yunru wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Because a "free hand" for manipulating small objects is different from a "free hand" to gesticulate for a spell, or to swing a sword.
Yunru wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
"Free" hand needs to not be bound.
If it's attached to your arm, it's not "free".
Bloodscythe wrote:
Weird rules. Double cross bows are pretty bulky. I've never seen a hand crossbow before, whatever that is, it must be small like that miniature picture. But real life crossbows are pretty big, so while you could aim them at different targets, even 180 degrees apart, shooting the same target would be difficult. Clearly if you have two bows of any variety, you are aiming blind with one if they both fire at the same time, and likely, having neither hand free and weird balance means a melee attacker would be at advantage to hit you, but again, I want you guys to remember I live literally next door to a hunting store and our modern crossbows are huge.
As a DM i have no problem with a player with preloaded crossbows Ready to fire shooting both in the same round.
Yunru wrote:
So really the only "free hand" in the game is mage hand. mwuahaha.
Bloodscythe wrote:
I know I don't have free time :P
Bloodscythe wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
durntaur wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
A character with the Dual Wielder feat can gain the benefits of TWF with their shield and retain their +2 AC bonus. Sure, the shield is an improvised weapon that doesn't benefit from proficiency bonus, but it is still an option (a bad option, but an option none the less). If I was going to take a feat though, I would instead take shield master with such a character.
RCanine wrote:
Hmm, the crossbow expert feat specifically says that you ignore the loading property of the crossbow. Still, it has to get loaded somehow. So I assume you would still need the free hand to perform this action. The wording in the feat might have been simplified.
On the other hand, I can think of many contraptions which could be used to reload a crossbow. A hook on your armor to pull back the string combined with an ammo clip for your bolts. Perhaps a human wouldn't be able to do this. But your tinker gnome crossbow expert could easily pull it off!
Mewnine wrote:
Kalani wrote:
DoctorBadWolf wrote:
Ok, now I feel kinda bad.
intently wrote:
Mewnine wrote:
DoctorBadWolf wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
DoctorBadWolf wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
Half cover = Cover. It provides a +2 bonus.
Three-quarters Cover provides a +5 bonus
Total cover means you cannot be targeted for attacks (that require line of effect), which is 99% of them (the catapult spell is the only one I can think of that could still hit you).
MechaPilot wrote:
As I said in another thread - I think the issue occured because of a dissonance between developer intent and player expectations. In this MMO-spoiled world, most players want abilities they can spam on reliable cycles, which is simply not how I think the Crossbow Expert feat was intended to function.
Based on the wording, I think the image that went through the Dev's mind when they created the feat was something like Pirates of the Carribean - with the flintlock being substituted for a handbow. That was not how the feat was used by players however, who wanted to gain its benefit each and every round (rather than a fire and forget ability). I don't blame players for having such an expectation, but it does create a dissonance between design intent and how it was used.
As such, the errata clarified the design intent.... You can still spam your handbow, but you now need a free hand to do so.... This image evokes Han Solo with his blaster, or a Cowboy with a revolver, while the Handbow + Weapon scenario evokes Jack Sparrow (who would keep two loaded handbows in his belt).
For those saying that keeping a loaded handbow is impossible - I will state for the record that most crossbows IRL have a trigger lock mechanism to prevent accidental firing (it works the same as how a trigger lock works on a firearm). It is not much of a stretch to then add a small metal hinge, slide rail, or slide bolt which prevents the bolt from falling out of the pre-loaded handbow.
So I am curious here. Since dual-wielding is definitely a thing, is it legal (I am sure it is realistically possible) to fire two hand crossbows in your first turn if they are loaded prior to combat? I get that you would only be able to reload on per round and fire it as it requires one free hand to reload each one regardless of any feat.
That being said what if someone had a lanyard on the grip of each hand crossbow that allows it to hang free from the wrist? You are not stowing it, just letting it drop freeing up that hand to reload the other then do the same with the other one to reload the first one. If flat dropping an item is a free action it would be two free actions to drop the hand crossbows but I am not 100% sure about the action cost to reload each hand crossbow if you have the Crossbow Master feat. I am also not sure about the action cost to re-equip each one to fire it.
It seems to be logical that you could easily fire 2 loaded hand crossbows at the start of your first turn, but with the reloading issues I guess I can see that after then you are looking at 1 shot per round until you have multiple attacks. Do I have this right or is there stuff I am missing?
Xhaosdaemon wrote:
Xhaosdaemon wrote:
Xhaosdaemon wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Drat - I forgot that detail. Either way, if you have crossbow expert - you can most definitely make an attack with each handbow, drop one and then continue spamming the second one. It costs more, but gets points for coolness to open up with dual handbows.
Personally, I think I would keep loaded dual handbows anyway - just on the off chance that I wanted to use a melee weapon.....Draw one handbow and fire, drop it, then draw the second one on the following turn - Jack Sparrow style. Yes, mechanically - there is no penalty for firing into melee (and so you can do away with a melee weapon entirely, save for ammo) - but there are other reasons to consider:
- Different damage types: Since we are talking DEX-primary characters, we are looking at finesse weapons such as scimitars (d6), hand axes (d6), and light hammers (d4).
- Silvered Weapon: It is more expensive to carry around silver ammunition, than to purchase a silver weapon for those times when it is relevant.
- Risk of being disarmed: While the risk is low, its easier to disarm someone of one weapon than two.
- Conserves Ammunition: Spamming a handbow makes you run out of bolts twice as fast.
There are other reasons, but this covers the main ones.
Kalani wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
Yeah, I never consider realism for the sake of trying to make the game actually realistic. I just try to look for ways where things are both unrealistic and detrimental/restrictive, and fix those so they aren't both. Ideally so they're neither, but that doesn't always work.
Generally, I feel like dnd is realistic enough for immersion to not break down easily for most players. But where immersion breaks immediately for me and a lot of other players is when a point of unrealism is also a thing that restricts our choices/abilities.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Yunru wrote:
I like the whole "shields as cover" idea. Even the bonus to dex saves. Makes shields always a choice worth serious consideration (which they should be).
RCanine wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Wow. I never said I'd "do" or "allow" anything. Only that I liked the idea. I also never even came close to offering up any kind of comprehensive houserule to incorporate or consider in my games. Lighten up.
Also, I can't fathom where you get "since cover bonuses don't stack". Explain.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
They don't "stack", is not the same as "total amount of body being obstructed could equal level of cover". Because if we were to change the rules to make shields cover, there clearly there needs to be more comprehensive changes to incorporate such an impactful idea. Don't argue in a vacuum.
So if the attacker can only see 1/4 of you (or less), because your large shield covered half of you, and a creature obstructed even more of that from an attacker, it can be 3/4 cover. Why not?
It's like you are going out of your way to play the "eat your cake and have it too" argument just to argue against something that isn't even a fully fleshed out idea yet.
But go ahead and quote the PHB in one hand, while discussing a large sweeping houserule ideas in the other. That doesn't sound disingenuous at all...
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
I can't imagine you are being serious. Or honest. How can we be discussing the idea of a potentially major houserule, that would fundamentally alter shields into portable cover devices, without changing how cover works in general?
Also, again, I never said I "want to treat a shield as providing cover". All I ever said was that I liked the idea of it. To which, you immediately jumped on it as if I somehow presented some kind of half-arsed houserule for consideration and feedback.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
I'll say it again, for the third time then. I like the idea of it. My post might as well have been a "+1", 
, or maybe even a 
.
It was not, in any way, an offer to present any kind of backup or suggestion to flesh it out further. So you are barking up the wrong tree if you think you can demand that I answer your questions. (Even though I totally already did.)
But, since that is what you are trying to do, I'll be sure to call out the hypocrisy next time you merely express approval for something. It shouldn't be long, since we've all done it many times.
Despite all that, WRT this particular topic, I have offered up suggestions. And more than you, BTW. I've expressed how I think shields could interact with other cover, as well as an idea for how to modify the Sheid Mastery feat because of how it is impacted.
Macv12 wrote:
Here is how I would rule Shields (if used as cover).
Shields
- Shields provide half-cover (+2 AC).
- You can spend your reaction to hide behind your shield, gaining three-quarters cover (+5AC) from a single attack, or spell which requires a Dexterity Saving Throw, however you lose the cover bonus against all other attacks until the start of your next turn.
- The shield master feat grants you proficiency with the shield as a weapon (1d6 damage; bludgeoning). If you hold a light weapon in your off-hand, you can benefit from two-weapon fighting with your shield, even though it is not considered a light weapon itself.
Cover: I would also add the following entry to the Cover rules.
- Under certain circumstances, a DM may allow two or more sources of half-cover to stack. If this occurs, the creature is treated as having three-quarters cover instead (+5 AC).
The above entry is already implied in the rules, as the DM determines if you have half- or three-quarters cover based on their interpretation of the entire scene (and everything involved). I would just make such an option explicit in the rules, instead of implicit.
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Err... I missed a word when writing that. You would lose the cover bonus (from your shield) against all other attacks, until the start of your next turn.....
Minor editing mistake. It happens (besides, it was only a conceptual idea, I hadn't finalized the wording or anything, or looked it over for unintended interpretations).
Kalani wrote:
As far as putting a cap on the AC bump - I see that as a good thing. For the most part, only PCs benefit from stupidly high AC (from magic items). Most creatures max out at around 20 AC, with a few outliers having up to 25 AC. Meanwhile, in some campaigns, PCs can hit ungodly AC scores of up to 30 (or more), which seems to defeat the purpose of "bounded accuracy".
In respect to magic shields - I am not sure how to handle those.... but it is something to think about were I to explore this concept further than my rough idea. At a guess, I might simply allow magic shields to give characters +1 AC (as normal).
As an alternative to Reaction (three-quarters cover)
- You could always give them a reaction ability that grants them resistance to damage from the oncoming attack (as you physically impose the shield between you and the attack, reducing its damage), but at the expense of losing the shield's cover bonus until the start of their next turn.
Kalani wrote:
Yes, enemies can disengage - but as a DM, I don't always have my enemies do so (even if they should).
- Sometimes the enemy is willing to take the risk on the hope that the character misses and they can pursue a better target (eg. the party mage), or because they prefer to Dash instead (in the hopes of putting distance between them and the party).
- Sometimes the creature isn't smart or wise enough to know that their enemies can make Opportunity Attacks. Such a creature provokes without realizing why the enemy keeps attacking them.
- Sometimes they provoke in order to bait the party into using OAs and using up their reaction, so that they, or an ally can do something even nastier that the party would have liked a reaction to prevent.
- Sometimes the enemy is in a blind rage/tunnel visioned and simply doesn't notice (or care) that they are provoking an OA.
DMs who always use the most superior tactics for their enemies run the risk of all enemies becoming tactically boring and predictable. I like to keep things interesting, and have the enemies not only use tactics according to their natures, temperament, and intelligence - but also according to their motivations.
A timid coward would most definitely use disengage at every opportunity.... A brash, and overconfident fighter - might simply be foolish, and believe he is under no threat and therefore provokes rashly.
Kalani wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote: